Introduction
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved its verdict on PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments made to the accountability laws. The extensive proceedings, comprising more than 50 hearings, have finally come to an end. A three-member bench, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the plea today.
Background
In June 2022, Imran Khan moved the apex court against amendments made to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) ordinance under the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Act 2022. These amendments made significant changes to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, including reducing the term of the NAB chairman and prosecutor general to three years, limiting NAB’s jurisdiction to cases involving over Rs500 million, and transferring all pending inquiries, investigations, and trials to relevant authorities.
Imran Khan claimed in his petition that these amendments were made to benefit influential accused persons and legitimize corruption. However, during recent hearings, Justice Shah urged for a full court to hear the case, while CJP Bandial opposed it, considering his retirement near and the lengthy pending time of the case.
Arguments Presented
During the hearing, Khawaja Haris appeared as Imran Khan’s counsel, while senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan represented the federal government. Both counsels have completed their arguments in the case.
CJP Bandial noted that references against whom had been returned till May this year were still with the NAB. He expressed concern about the lack of clarity in the law on crimes such as smuggling, illegal transfer of money, or state assets being used for corruption.
The court reserved its verdict on the matter, with CJP Bandial stating that they would soon announce a short and sweet verdict.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments to the accountability laws is eagerly awaited. The case has been closely watched, given its potential impact on corruption cases and the accountability of public office holders. The verdict will determine whether the amendments made to the NAB law were made in the best interest of the country or to benefit influential individuals.
Leave a Reply